How are ya feeling? Even if there is a bit of psycho active thing going on, it can be an interesting drive and some even help the ol' sex drive but what I found on some of the shit I took in hospital with all the hallucinogenic images, was that they have stuck with me but it was all good fun. So gowiththeflowwoman.:)I feel one should go into taking any drugs with a degree of high expectation.

Thanks for posting that Herald article, In the interests of public health it’s possibly worth elaborating on a number of points, as it did touch on some useful info:

linking it to respiratory, circulatory and psychiatric problems.

Although direct links to cancer and psychiatric problems are still contended, there’s no harm in spreading awareness of this (as with any drug) in the interests of enabling users to better moderate usage.

is thought to be related to the way it is smoked. ….As a result, the cannabis smoker inhales four times as much tar and five times as much carbon monoxide

Personally I think it’s not a bad thing that people are aware of this i.e.

Is the 'tar' inhaled from marijuana the same chemical compound as that inhaled from tobacco? You see these comments about 'tar' in reports, but to me 'tar' is a generic term for dark, sticky stuff and I wonder if apples are being compared with apples when such comparisons as Chris mentions above are made.

Given that the 2 products (tobacco & marijuana) are quite different in their chemical make-up, I suspect that the tar from tobacco is not the same as tar from marijuana.

Oh pretty good now, thanks Sof. Just wanted to wave a flag for the good things SSRIs can do for some people. I wish I'd asked for them a lot earlier instead of being all stoical. Looking back I can't think what I was trying to prove!

I suspect that the tar from tobacco is not the same as tar from marijuana.

That is exactly right, when attempting to find conclusive info on the respective composition and residual effects of these tars I stumbled on a minefield of conflicting (mis)information/ opinions. Whichever way it’s spun, inhaling smoke of any kind is undesirable, and less tar would seem preferable: vaporizers minimize the amount of tar considerably, as does the culinary approach.

I loved the claims from the cops after the big pot bust in Wgtn last week that marijuana is the illicit drug responsible for the most hospital admissions. I suppose if you include psych admissions, it could well be true. NO mention of alcohol-related admissions, or how many of those stoned patients were also drunk. You never see those comparisons in mainstream media here.

There's a degree of overlap, the second being briefer. A conclusion that both put forward being:

If marijuana and similar substances were regulated, a requirement to include a certain level of CBD might be one way to minimize harm

The key is to replicate the antipsychotic properties of CBD without triggering the risks carried by THC

That nature has done this to a certain extent is not dwelt on: A Cannabis indica plant may have a CBD/THC ratio 4-5 times that of Cannabis sativa. It would seem that a mature discussion on the relationship between cannabis and neurological issues first requires this distinction be clarified for the general population, again so that people are enabled to make more informed choices. Traits of these two main strains are identifiable both physically and by the high they produce. Regardless of the fact that most Cannabis available will be crossbred these days, with experience/ education one is still able to estimate the CBD/THC ratio from the high/stoning they experience.

And sorry to go on, I was concerned my syntax was a little vague, obviously many already know this but in the interests of clarity for the uninitiated:Indica: more CBD – stonedSativa: more THC – high

My apologies to anyone offended by my use of Wikipedia as a source. I’ll be the first to admit it’s only a single rung up from the kindergarten politicking being employed by the Wellington Drug Squad and others.

Thanks, Chris. I personally tend to agree with the thrust of the Times article, in that any association cannabis use has with mental health issues is not going to be a mechanistic cause/effect one. And this is with close personal experience of people who were cannabis-dependent and had associated issues.

Any arguments about risk reduction from cops are just ludicrous in the context of a state-supported alcohol industry, in any case.

"there were between 2205 and 2512 cannabis-related admissions to publicly-funded hospitals between 2001 and 2005.|there were between 2205 and 2512 cannabis-related admissions to publicly-funded hospitals between 2001 and 2005…

… But the Drug Harm Index shows cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug in the country, with 373,310 users – well above the next most popular drug, amphetamines, with 95,170 users."

"A total of 5,413 young people were hospitalised with alcohol-related admissions between 2002 and 2006"

[Alcohol Harm in New Zealand]

In fairness to the police they do refrain from specifying direct causality: ‘involved’ ‘related’ are conveniently loose terms, I think there’s something in that:

… And it’s not just rural areas at risk, late last year emergency services were called to properties in Dinsdale and nearby Whatawhata after explosions while offenders were making cannabis oil….

… Waikato having one of the country’s highest levels of cannabis related hospital admissions”

Certainly in the cases of Detective Travis Hughes and Christopher Scott, killed when their Cessna 172 crashed in Central Otago while on cannabis reconnaissance, Detective Tony Harrod died falling from a helicopter sling recovering plants in Taranaki and Senior Constable Len Snee killed executing a cannabis search warrant on Jan Molenaar, cannabis decriminalisation would have delivered different outcomes.

In the Operation Foxy report the last paragraph in particular stood out for me:

"Operation Foxy should send a clear message to those involved in such activity that if you are accumulating wealth, we will pursue all possible avenues in holding you to account and seize any assets gained from that activity.”

After all, of any group in New Zealand, it is the police who are most acutely aware of the fact that despite inflated street values, the proliferation of this abundant wind-pollinated flowering plant with no actual monetary value is not merely unstoppable, but in concert with unfeasible legislation – potentially lethal.

In this way:

“purchasers often divert income from other every day necessities required to support their families.”

could be taken as a veiled comment on the social toll of prohibition. I would hazard a guess that a decent number of police would support the decriminalisation of cannabis and I feel it’s perhaps unfair to lay much on officers whose hands are professionally tied, when culpability lies squarely and quite clearly with successive Governments.

New Zealand Governments have stood back and watched billions of New Zealand dollars squandered on the black market. They have allowed gangs to expand and multiply. These respective individuals and parties have stood idly by while police and members of the community have been senselessly injured and killed. It’s high time they owned this.

For many people, part of the appeal of alcoholic drinks -- and cannabis for that matter -- is that it has come from the earth, with all the mystery and variety that reflects into the end product. I currently have a bottle of the Bruichladdich Rocks, which the label says is "an innovative single malt ... [that] uses water that has filtered up throygh the oldest rocks in the whisky world -- the curious 1.8 billion year-old geology of the Rhinns of Islay."

You're not going to get that out of a lab, are you?

Yes, but I bet someone in a lab tested your single malt to make sure it was the proof it said it was, and wasn't full of methanol. The mystery and variety of the earth is a bit mythological when you're talking about cultivated plants, distilling and so on, and there's a tension between safe consumption and making things earthily variable.

It would be interesting to see what the effect of regulated mood-altering drugs would be on the subculture of folks who dislike the evils of big pharma but are happy to take their chances with the pills their mate's mate sells them.